Sarah Byford1, Barbara Barrett, Nicola Metrebian, Teodora Groshkova, Maria Cary, Vikki Charles, Nicholas Lintzeris, John Strang. 1. Sarah Byford, PhD, Barbara Barrett, PhD, Centre for the Economics of Mental and Physical Health, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, UK; Nicola Metrebian, PhD, Addictions Department, National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, UK; Teodora Groshkova, PhD, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, Portugal; Maria Cary, MSc, Centre for the Economics of Mental and Physical Health, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, UK; Vikki Charles, MA, Addictions Department, National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, UK; Nicholas Lintzeris, PhD, The Langton Centre, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, NSW Health, Australia; John Strang, MD, Addictions Department, National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of the effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment compared with oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction, the additional cost of injectable treatment is considerable, and cost-effectiveness uncertain. AIMS: To compare the cost-effectiveness of supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone with optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. METHOD: Multisite, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Economic perspective included health, social services and criminal justice resources. RESULTS:Intervention costs over 26 weeks were significantly higher for injectable heroin (mean £8995 v. £4674 injectable methadone and £2596 oral methadone; P<0.0001). Costs overall were highest for oral methadone (mean £15 805 v. £13 410 injectable methadone and £10 945 injectable heroin; P = n.s.) due to higher costs of criminal activity. In cost-effectiveness analysis, oral methadone was dominated by injectable heroin and injectable methadone (more expensive and less effective). At willingness to pay of £30 000 per QALY, there is a higher probability of injectable methadone being more cost-effective (80%) than injectable heroin. CONCLUSIONS: Injectable opioid treatments are more cost-effective than optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. The choice between supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone is less clear. There is currently evidence to suggest superior effectiveness of injectable heroin but at a cost that policy makers may find unacceptable. Future research should consider the use of decision analytic techniques to model expected costs and benefits of the treatments over the longer term.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of the effectiveness of injectable opioid treatment compared with oral methadone for chronic heroin addiction, the additional cost of injectable treatment is considerable, and cost-effectiveness uncertain. AIMS: To compare the cost-effectiveness of supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone with optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. METHOD: Multisite, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Outcomes were assessed in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Economic perspective included health, social services and criminal justice resources. RESULTS: Intervention costs over 26 weeks were significantly higher for injectable heroin (mean £8995 v. £4674 injectable methadone and £2596 oral methadone; P<0.0001). Costs overall were highest for oral methadone (mean £15 805 v. £13 410 injectable methadone and £10 945 injectable heroin; P = n.s.) due to higher costs of criminal activity. In cost-effectiveness analysis, oral methadone was dominated by injectable heroin and injectable methadone (more expensive and less effective). At willingness to pay of £30 000 per QALY, there is a higher probability of injectable methadone being more cost-effective (80%) than injectable heroin. CONCLUSIONS: Injectable opioid treatments are more cost-effective than optimised oral methadone for chronic refractory heroin addiction. The choice between supervised injectable heroin and injectable methadone is less clear. There is currently evidence to suggest superior effectiveness of injectable heroin but at a cost that policy makers may find unacceptable. Future research should consider the use of decision analytic techniques to model expected costs and benefits of the treatments over the longer term.
Authors: Jeremy W Bray; Brandon Aden; Ashley A Eggman; Leah Hellerstein; Eve Wittenberg; Bohdan Nosyk; Judy C Stribling; Bruce R Schackman Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2017-02-10
Authors: Nicola Metrebian; Tim Weaver; Kimberley Goldsmith; Stephen Pilling; Jennifer Hellier; Andrew Pickles; James Shearer; Sarah Byford; Luke Mitcheson; Prun Bijral; Nadine Bogdan; Owen Bowden-Jones; Edward Day; John Dunn; Anthony Glasper; Emily Finch; Sam Forshall; Shabana Akhtar; Jalpa Bajaria; Carmel Bennett; Elizabeth Bishop; Vikki Charles; Clare Davey; Roopal Desai; Claire Goodfellow; Farjana Haque; Nicholas Little; Hortencia McKechnie; Franziska Mosler; Jo Morris; Julian Mutz; Ruth Pauli; Dilkushi Poovendran; Elizabeth Phillips; John Strang Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rebecca Woodhouse; Matthew Neilson; Marrissa Martyn-St James; Julie Glanville; Catherine Hewitt; Amanda E Perry Journal: Health Justice Date: 2016-09-13
Authors: Amanda E Perry; Rebecca Woodhouse; Matthew Neilson; Marrissa Martyn St James; Julie Glanville; Catherine Hewitt; Dominic Trépel Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 3.390